We are excited to work with LEED v4.1 primarily because it is not LEED v4. LEED v4 has underperformed, as mentioned-above, because it was a disaster from the outset.
We appreciate the now acknowledged fact that LEED v4 was ill-advised from its inception. Industry professionals knew it was a catastrophe in the making and the voluminous thoughtful, insightful, and well-meaning recommendations submitted through public comment proved it, yet they were ignored by the USGBC.
The contrast between the death knell of LEED (v4) to this massive change that is LEED v4.1 is so stark it is almost insulting. Credits and prerequisites that had value are absent or changed so dramatically that they are unrecognizable. Credits and prerequisites that were pointless and useless are also gone, for which we thank you. It is hard to believe the USGBC TAG’s that fought so hard against us during the LEED v4 creation have drifted so far to delete or weaken anything that was contentious.
Making the LEED EBOM rating system more inclusive may be principled, potentially marketable, and certainly the USGBC hopes profitable, but at the cost of eviscerating the rating system and diminishing the value to be more inclusive is troublesome.
More buildings applying to a system with less rigor, virtually no industry leading guidance, a lack of transparency, and a point accumulation methodology system is not groundbreaking or forward thinking.
Unfortunately, LEED Certifications have been commoditized for many years, which has regrettably been accepted and honored by the USGBC, and v4.1 serves to further support the undesirous path that cheaper and easier is better.
With additional viable green building certification options in the market to compete with LEED it will be interesting to see if the market evolves to be more inclusive of other rating systems or will the LEED brand, which once represented the epitome of green building ratings, remain predominant primarily because it is what is most familiar.
I am not against progressive sustainability technology, improved efficiency in certification paths, reducing cost for clients, and eliminating nonsensical and meaningless actions and measurements that serve no purpose (all LEED versions), but it appears the goal is to automate, cheapen, simplify, and drive numbers, not necessarily to improve sustainability or health and wellness on a broad scale or serve the original mission of LEED that was designed to transform an industry.
The bar has been set low with LEED v4.1, which appears to be a common theme these days, but just because the governmental agencies are moving backwards LEED should not.
My team at CBRE has completed over 800 LEED EBOM certifications and has been one of the biggest proponents of LEED rating systems on earth. We will continue to support the brand with clients who choose this path, but LEED v4.1 presents significant challenges when we discuss the rationale, investment, and potential impact of what was once the system leading the sustainable building revolution.
Add new comment
To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.